GHG From Waste

Manual
SWM-GHG Calculator
Tool for calculating greenhouse gases (GHG)

in solid waste management (SWM)
Developed by Sponsored and financed by

Published by
KfW Bankengruppe
Communication Department
Palmengartenstrasse 5-9
60325 Frankfurt am Main
Phone +49 (0)69 7431-0
Fax +49 (0)69 7431-2944
www.kfw.de
Author
ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH
Jürgen Giegrich and Regine Vogt
Wilckensstrasse 3
69120 Heidelberg
Phone +49(0)6221 4767-0
Fax +49 (0)6221 4767-19
ifeu@ifeu.de
www.ifeu.de
On behalf of KfW Entwicklungsbank, Competence Center Water and Waste Management,
in co-operation with GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit) GmbH
Photos
KfW Bildarchiv / Fotoagentur: photothek.net
Wolfgang Pfaff-Simoneit
Frankfurt am Main, Juli 2009

Preliminary Note
This manual provides background information and additional explanations

on the use of the SWM-GHG Calculator. However, it is by no means
necessary to study the manual before using the SWM-GHG Calculator. The
quickest way to learn how to utilise the tool is to start it and to follow the
instructions provided.
Besides some explanatory instructions this manual provides additional

background information and basic data. The main section titles in the
manual refer to the different spreadsheets in the SWM-GHG Calculator.
The SWM-GHG Calculator was developed by IFEU Institute, sponsored by

KfW Development Bank (German Financial Development Cooperation) in
cooperation with GTZ (German Technical Development Cooperation) and
financed with funds provided by the German Federal Ministry for Economic
Cooperation and Development.
Acknowledgement
For their valuable discussions and professional support the authors would like to thank
Mr. Wolfgang Pfaff-Simoneit (KfW)

Mrs. Sandra Spies (GTZ)
Dr. Günther Wehenpohl (GTZ)
Contents
Page
1 Background and objective 1
2 Methodology 2
3 Recommendations for defining scenarios 5
4 Overview (Intro) 8
5 "Start" 9
5.1 Total waste amount 9
5.2 Waste composition 10
5.3 Waste characteristics – water content 12
5.4 Calculation of waste parameters – intermediate result 13
5.5 Country-specific GHG emission factor for generation of electricity 16
6 "Recycling" 17
6.1 Dry materials 17
6.2 Organic waste composting and/or digestion 19
6.3 Intermediate results – waste parameters of remaining residual
waste 19
6.4 Recycling – treatment processes and GHG emission factors 20
7 "Disposal" 20
7.1 Options for waste treatment and disposal 21
7.2 Data on disposal technologies 22
8 "Costs" 22
9 "Results" 24
9.1 Results for the scenarios 24
9.2 "Results all" 27
9.3 "Results costs all" 28
10 "Calculation" 29
11 References 30
Abbreviations 33
Annex 35
Manual: SWM-GHG Calculator Page 1
1 Background and objective

Climate change is considered one of the greatest global challenges of the 21st century. A
general consensus exists among the vast majority of climate experts that global warming
is the result of rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere.
Since industrialisation began, human activities have intensified the natural greenhouse
effect, which is caused largely by water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone in the
atmosphere, through anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), resulting in
global warming.
The waste management sector contributes to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect

primarily through emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide
(N2O). The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report puts the contribution made by the solid
waste and wastewater management sector to global greenhouse gas emissions at 2.7%,
which might at first sight appear to be comparatively low. This figure, however, does not
fully reflect the actual potential for reducing GHG emissions by the waste management
sector. The IPCC calculations take into account only end-of-pipe solid waste management
strategies, such as:
Landfill/waste dumping
Composting
Waste incineration (in case the generated heat energy is not utilised)
Sewage disposal
The positive impacts of reducing, re-using or recycling waste – the 3R’s –, as well as
waste-to-energy strategies, on climate protection are either attributed to other source
categories – in particular to the energy sector and to industrial processes – or they are not
accounted for at all in the GHG inventories reported to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) under the Kyoto Protocol.
"Recycling" in GHG national inventories

The effects of material or energy recycling are not credited to the "Waste" sector in the
GHG inventories, but are included in the "Energy" or "Industrial Processes" sectors for
methodological reasons. For instance, scrap recycling is included in the industry sector
under "Metal Production: Iron and Steel Production" using an emission factor for steel
production in an electric arc furnace where most of the scrap is used. The resulting
emissions are lower than those from other steel production methods where primary
material is used. Additionally, because scrap is used for steel production less pig iron
produced from iron ore is needed. Both these effects, the saved emissions due to the
recycling process and the reduced emissions from substituting the extraction of iron ore
and production of pig iron, are not stated separately in the GHG inventory and thus hide
the contributions of the waste sector to these GHG reductions.
The same applies to the use of all solid waste fractions as secondary raw materials.
Therefore, national inventories only partially reflect the contribution of waste management
activities to GHG mitigation. Developing countries and emerging economies would not
only considerably reduce their GHG emissions at comparably low costs, but would also
significantly contribute to improving public health conditions and environmental protection

if they were to put in place sustainable waste management systems. GHG emissions
produced by the waste management sector in developing countries and emerging
economies are highly relevant, in particular because of the high percentage of
biodegradable components contained in the waste streams. The potential to reduce GHG
emissions is significantly higher than the 2.7% figure in the IPCC statistics would lead us
to assume. Over and above this, stepping up recycling could further reduce emissions,
although it must be pointed out that the recyclable components of waste in developing
countries and emerging economies are lower than in industrialised countries.
A study conducted on behalf of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and
Development BMZ estimates that developing countries and emerging economies could
reduce their national GHG emissions by around 5% merely by adopting municipal waste
management systems (IFEU 2008). The authors reckon that if other waste types,
especially waste containing high levels of biodegradable organic matter, in particular the
residues of agricultural activities and the food industry or other, similar industrial wastes
are included in the waste management system, the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions in these countries could be doubled, i.e. in the order of 10%. For comparison:
the German waste management activities accounted for about 20% of the overall GHG
reduction achieved over the period 1990 to 2005 by establishing what is called "closed-
loop waste management" (Troge 2007).
The objective of this "Tool for Calculating GHG Emissions in Solid Waste Management"
(SWM-GHG Calculator) is to aid in understanding the effects of proper waste
management on GHG emissions. The SWM-GHG Calculator allows quantification and
comparison of GHG emissions for different waste management strategies at an early
stage in the decision making process. Default values allow approximations to be made
even if basic data are not (yet) available. Additionally, the SWM-GHG Calculator provides
guidance information on the costs associated with different waste management strategies.
The use of the SWM-GHG Calculator does not require profound professional experience
in solid waste management. It can even be used by persons having only basic knowledge
in the sector, e.g. by decision makers or mayors. Nevertheless, the SWM-GHG Calculator
can be better used and the results are better understood the more experience users have.
2 Methodology
Basically, the calculation method used in the SWM-GHG Calculator follows the Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) method. Different waste management strategies can be compared by
calculating the GHG emissions of the different recycled (typically glass, paper and
cardboard, plastics, metals, organic waste) and disposed of waste fractions over their
whole life cy
cle – from "cradle to grave", in a manner of speaking. The tool sums up the emissions of
all residual waste or recycling streams respectively and calculates the total GHG
emissions of all process stages in CO2 equivalents. The emissions calculated also include
all future emissions caused by a given quantity of treated waste. This means that when
waste is sent to landfill, for example, the calculated GHG emissions, given in tonne CO2
equivalents per tonne waste, include the cumulated emissions this waste amount will
generate during its degradation. This method corresponds to the "Tier 1" approach
described in IPCC (1996, 2006).
Figure 2-1 shows a simplified example of an integrated waste management system. At

every stage of the recycling and disposal chains GHG emissions occur for each single
waste fraction. Recycling activities lead to secondary products ("secondary raw
materials"), which substitute for primary raw materials or fossil fuels ("waste-to-energy").
The benefits from the substitution of primary raw materials or fossil fuels are calculated as
credits according to the emissions avoided in the corresponding processes, pursuant to
the LCA method. The accounting procedures applied for the use of secondary raw
materials encompass every stage in the process, from the separation of waste to sorting
and preparing waste, as well as transport emissions. Only the emissions from waste
collection were neglected because it may be assumed that emissions generated by waste
collection are more or less in the same range for each scenario, as can be seen in Figure
2-1.
Waste
Collection
Recycling MBT
Co-incin-
eration
MSWI
Application
products
Landfill
Benefit
Figure 2-1 Flow diagram of an integrated solid waste management system
Up to four different waste management systems can be compared using the SWM-GHG
Calculator; in addition to Status Quo, three user-definable scenarios can be analysed in
one step. If users want to do calculations with different waste quantities or compositions,
the SWM-GHG Calculator must be copied and saved under a different name.
For methodical and practical reasons it was necessary to design the tool by applying
various simplifications. It must be emphasized that the SWM-GHG Calculator can by no
means represent a fully-fledged Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). For example, most GHG
calculations for the recycling chains are based on emission factors which account for
specific treatment options in Germany and Europe. This is why the SWM-GHG Calculator
delivers common results based on average data for recycling. Nevertheless, the variations
are not serious or critical for decision making. Details of the main assumptions made are
explained in this manual.
Furthermore, the SWM-GHG Calculator is not suited to calculating the anticipated quantity
of Certified Emission Reductions (CER) in the framework of the Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM)1 or of Emission Reduction Units (ERU) in the framework of the Joint
Implementation (JI). Firstly, the CDM and JI refer to individual projects and must take into
account the theoretical generation of GHG that would occur during waste degradation if a
CDM or JI project where not implemented ("baseline"). The SWM-GHG Calculator, on the
other hand, compares different solid waste management systems or strategies. Secondly,
the CERs and ERUs must be calculated and are compensated on an annual basis; i.e.
only the GHG emissions caused by a given quantity of treated waste per year are
considered – calculated in compliance with the "Tier 2" approach in (IPCC 1996, 2006) –
and only a crediting period of either once ten years or three times seven years can be
chosen. The CDM or JI crediting periods are therefore much shorter than the waste
degradation period, which is 50 years or more. Thus only around 50% - 80% of the
avoided GHG generation of a given quantity of waste is compensated by CDM resp. JI
mechanisms (ANS/DWA 2009). Beyond that there are currently no methodologies
available for recycling activities within the CDM.
The simplifications discussed above were necessary and had to be accepted for the
benefit of better manageability of the SWM-GHG Calculator. Against the background of
the tool's objective – to aid in understanding the consequences of waste management
activities with respect to the related GHG emissions – it serves as a valuable orientation
aid. The results deliver a sufficiently accurate quantitative approximation of the GHG
impacts of different strategies as an important contribution to decision making.
Even if users have no access to complete data for the situation in their region or country
they can use the proposed default values to achieve a best guess. Certainly, the better
the databases – especially in terms of waste quantities and composition – the better and
more reliable are the results. Nevertheless, in practice waste treatment options must be
thoroughly assessed in any case before realising a new project. The results of the SWM-
GHG Calculator can and should provide additional information for the decision making
process only.
1
Basic information according to the CDM procedure can be found e.g. in (UBA 2009)
3 Recommendations for defining scenarios

Some recommendations for defining scenarios are given, together with an example
describing a possible Status Quo scenario and three waste management strategy
scenarios. The exemplary scenarios are described briefly in Table 3-1.
1. All scenarios should refer to the same region, waste quantity and waste
composition.
2. Describe the Status Quo as realistically as possible. Initially collect only easily
accessible or available basic input data (population figures, waste quantities and
compositions, present waste disposal practice). Don’t waste time on ambitious
data research. If data are not easily available, use the default values provided.
3. Define Scenario 1 as the probable future business-as-usual development scenario,
e.g. solutions in neighbouring regions, solutions discussed on political and
professional levels. Try to estimate the quantities of waste already being recycled,
in particular by the informal sector, as accurately as possible, but do not
overestimate them! Keep in mind that even comprehensive informal recycling
schemes do not recover more than about 50% of the generated recyclable waste
components (paper, cardboard, plastics etc.).
4. Define Scenario 2 as a more advanced solid waste management system. For
example, extension of waste collection services to as yet unconnected
municipalities or city quarters; optimisation of recycling activities, e.g. by
cooperation with the informal sector or supportive measures; introduction of
composting for selected waste streams (garden, park, market waste); possible pre-
treatment/biological stabilisation of residual waste before sending to landfill.
5. Define Scenario 3 as a modern solid waste management system according to the
advanced standards and strategies of western European countries, e.g. closed-
loop-recycling systems, waste-to-energy strategies, etc.; stay realistic with
achievable recovery rates. Figures of more than 80% - 90% material recycling are
not achievable even with very advanced strategies and technologies (see Table
6-1).
Last but not least and most important: Play with the tool! Try to identify what can be
achieved in GHG mitigation by applying different visions for the organisation of solid waste
management in your city, in your region or even in your country!
Table 3-1 Example of a Status Quo and definition of alternative scenarios
The Status Quo describes a typical situation in a developing country where

no appropriate sanitary waste management currently takes place. Waste is
partly recycled by the informal sector under difficult health conditions. Some
neighbouring municipalities or districts are not yet covered by regular waste
Status Quo collection services. The majority of the waste is dumped on unmanaged
disposal sites under anaerobic conditions producing methane; other parts are
disposed of in low heaps (“scattered disposal”) under aerobic conditions,
producing mainly carbon dioxide. Half of the scattered waste is burned in
open fires producing extreme air pollution.
In this scenario it is assumed that a higher recycling rate can be realised and
Scenario 1: that garden and park waste is partly collected separately and composted.
Improved The remaining residual waste is mainly disposed of to sanitary landfill with a
recycling;
disposal of high-efficiency gas collection system (50%). The collected gas is used for
residual waste to electricity generation. 10% of the remaining residual waste is still scattered
sanitary landfill but no longer burned, assuming rural areas cannot be connected to the
central landfill.
This scenario is similar to Scenario 1 with one important difference: it is
Scenario 2: assumed that the remaining residual waste is no longer sent to landfill
Recycling as for directly, but is pre-treated in a stabilisation process before being discarded,
Scenario 1;
thus significantly minimising the resulting methane emissions from landfill.
biological
stabilisation of Gas collection is therefore no longer needed. Recycling rates and connection
remaining rates to central facilities are identical to Scenario 1. In accordance with
residual waste Scenario 1, 10% of the remaining residual waste is still scattered but not
burned.
This scenario represents the most advanced solid waste management
strategy. High recycling rates for dry recyclables are assumed as well as
Scenario 3: increased efficiency in the separate collection and composting of garden and
Advanced solid park waste. The remaining residual waste is separated via mechanical-
waste biological and/or mechanical-physical stabilisation producing a refuse-
management derived fuel (RDF) fraction that is used in a cement kiln and a metal fraction
system for recycling. Additionally, an inert fraction is separated for disposal and
impurities for incineration in a MSWI plant. Rural areas are connected to the
system – waste scattering no longer occurs.
The percentages for recycling rates, type of biological treatment, whereabouts of the
remaining residual waste and data on disposal technologies for the above described
scenarios in the example used in this manual are shown in Table 3-2 to Table 3-5. These
tables correlate with the input boxes in the SWM-GHG Calculator where users should
insert their own data for their Status Quo and the scenarios they would like to compare.
Table 3-2 Recycling rates – Example of a Status Quo and alternative scenarios
Status Quo Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Paper, cardboard 30% 50% 50% 70%
Plastics 30% 50% 50% 70%
Glass 10% 30% 30% 50%
Ferrous metals 40% 60% 60% 70%
Aluminium 40% 60% 60% 70%
Textiles 10% 20% 20% 40%
Food waste 0% 0% 0% 0%
Garden and park waste 0% 20% 20% 40%
Table 3-3 Composting or digestion of separately collected organic waste – Example

of a Status Quo and alternative scenarios

Composted 0% 100% 100% 100%
Digested 0% 0% 0% 0%
Table 3-4 Waste treatment and disposal of residual waste – Example of a Status Quo
and alternative scenarios

Scattered waste not burned 10% 10% 10% 0%
Open burning of scattered waste 10% 0% 0% 0%
Wild dumps/unmanaged disposal site 80% 0% 0% 0%
Controlled dump/landfill without gas
collection 0% 0% 0% 0%
Sanitary landfill with gas collection 0% 90% 0% 0%
BS + landfill 0% 0% 90% 0%
MBT + further treatment + landfill 0% 0% 0% 0%
MBS/MPS + co-processing cement kiln 0% 0% 0% 100%
Incineration 0% 0% 0% 0%
Table 3-5 Data on disposal technologies – Example of a Status Quo and alternative
scenarios

Efficiency of gas collection 0% 50% 0% 0%
Treatment of collected landfill gas

No treatment, ventilation only 0% 0% 0% 0%
Flare 0% 0% 0% 0%
Electricity generation 0% 100% 0% 0%
Energy efficiency of incineration

Electricity 0% 0% 0% 0%
Thermal 0% 0% 0% 0%
4 Overview (Intro)
The SWM-GHG Calculator was financed by funds provided by the German Federal
Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and designed on behalf of the
KfW Entwicklungsbank (German Financial Cooperation / Development Bank), in
cooperation with GTZ (German Technical Cooperation Agency). It is based on Excel as a
very common spreadsheet application and implemented in a rather simple manner in
order to allow users to quickly understand how the tool works. The tool contains brief
instructions on what to do, at few points, where it may be a little more complex;
alternatively, an assistant can be used. Principally, the ambition was to retain the Excel
character as far as possible because most users are familiar with this software.
In addition to the instructions, further information can be found in the tool, e.g. in the
reading text or in the Excel comments. Additionally, intermediate results are shown at a
number of places; the respective areas in the tool can be recognised by boxes marked
yellow.
The SWM-GHG Calculator comprises the following sheets:
Intro: Brief outline of the SWM-GHG Calculator, contact persons.
Start: Specification of waste amount, waste composition, waste

characteristics and country-specific electricity grid.
Recycling: Specifications for waste recycling, up to 4 scenarios can be

compared.
Disposal: Specifications for waste treatment and disposal, up to 4 scenarios

can be compared.
Costs: Specification of costs for waste recycling, and waste treatment and
disposal.
Result sheets:
Results SQ: Results of the Status Quo scenario
Results Sc1: Results of Scenario 1
Results all: Summary comparison of the results of up to four scenarios.
Results costs all: Summary comparison of the absolute costs of up to four scenarios
and mitigation costs per tonne of GHG of the scenarios 1 to 3
compared to the Status Quo
The sheets are explained in more detail in the following sections.
Basically, to work with the tool, data must be entered into the green cells.
5 "Start"
Some basic data must be entered to start calculations.
On the first worksheet, "Start", these are:
Total waste amount

Waste composition in percentages of wet weight
Waste characteristics
Country-specific GHG emission factor for generation of electricity
5.1 Total waste amount
The total waste amount can be entered either as:
a) Total waste amount in tonnes per year (tonnes/yr), or

b) Specific waste quantity in kilogrammes per capita and year (kg/cap/yr) combined
with number of inhabitants, or
c) Specific waste quantity in kilogrammes per capita and day (kg/cap/day) combined
with number of inhabitants calculated for 365 days/year.
Please note that only one option (a, b or c) may be used!
Please note that 1 kg/cap/day = 365 kg/cap/yr is generally used as a conversion factor.
If users are not sure of what to enter in this step they can alternatively use an assistant by
clicking the respective button:
Assistant
If no data are available on the specific waste quantity, either the recommended default
values for low income (LIE) or middle income (MIE) economies given in the tool may be
selected or data from the IPCC guidelines 2006 used (see annex, Table 0-1).
Table 0-2 in the annex shows data on the number of inhabitants in low, lower middle and
upper middle income economies and the degree of urbanisation (DSW 2007).
The result of your entry is shown in the yellow box for your information.
View before data entry View after data entry

Intermediate result / information Intermediate result / information
Your input results in a total waste amount of Your input results in a total waste amount of
Result - total waste amount Result - total waste amount

tonnes/yr 1.350.000 tonnes/yr 1.350.000
kg/cap/yr insert inhabitants in green cell kg/cap/yr 270
kg/cap/day insert inhabitants in green cell kg/cap/day 0,74
If you still see "insert inhabitants in green cell", you must insert the number of inhabitants
in the green cell.
If you see "0", you must specify a value for the quantity of waste.
If you are not sure what to do use of the assistant is recommended.
In general, if users forget any data needed in the green cells on a worksheet, they will be
reminded when they try to move to a different worksheet.
If you forget the quantity of waste the following warning appears:
yes no
If you forget the number of inhabitants the following warning appears:
yes no
In order to properly utilise the SWM-GHG Calculator, please do not continue anyway (click
"no") but return to the previous worksheet and fill in the missing data in the green cells as
advised or use the Assistant.
5.2 Waste composition
Waste composition is one of the main factors influencing GHG emissions from solid waste
treatment, because different waste fractions contain different amounts of regenerative
and/or degradable organic carbon (DOC) and fossil carbon. DOC is crucial for landfill gas
generation, while only fossil carbon contributes to climate change in case of incineration.
CO2 from organic carbon is considered neutral to the climate because it originates from
plants that bonded atmospheric CO2. Another important aspect is the calorific value,
which varies as a function of waste composition. For example, usually, the higher the
organic waste content in municipal solid waste (MSW); the lower the calorific value is
caused by the typically higher water content of the waste.
The calculations in the SWM-GHG Calculator are based on the total waste amount. This
is necessary to assess possible waste management scenarios properly. The total waste
amount is defined as the sum of waste for disposal and waste for recycling. Recycling
includes activities from the informal sector.
The waste composition must be entered in percentages of wet weight. The relation to
weight is more reliable than a relation to volume. It is recommended to carry out a sorting
analysis whenever possible to acquire the necessary data. If no data can be provided,
choose from the recommended default values for low income (LIE) or middle income
(MIE) economies (Table 5-1) that are also given in the tool. Alternatively, data from the
IPCC guidelines 2006 can be used (see annex, Table 0-3) but these do not provide data
for garden and park waste, ferrous metals, aluminium, nappies and mineral waste; see the
recommendations below for these data.
Table 5-1 Default values for waste composition for low (LIE) and middle income
economies (MIE)
Components Default LIE Default MIE

Food waste 55.4% 41.9%
Garden and park waste 9.2% 14.0%
Paper, cardboard 3.7% 9.3%
Plastics 2.8% 6.5%
Glass 1.2% 1.9%
Ferrous Metals 1.4% 1.9%
Aluminium 0.2% 0.5%
Textiles 1.4% 3.3%
Rubber, leather 1.4% 1.9%
Nappies (disposable diapers) 0% 4.0%
Wood 3.5% 6.0%
Mineral waste 6.0% 3.0%
Others 13.8% 5.8%
Total (must be 100%) 100.0% 100.0%
Source: (KfW 2008) supplemented by assessed shares of aluminium, nappies, wood and
minerals and adjusting the "Others" fraction.
The total percentages entered must equal 100%. Otherwise, you will be reminded by an
Excel warning to check your input when you try to move to another worksheet:
yes no
Explanations and recommendations:
- Food waste is waste from kitchens before (waste from preparation) and after
(scraps, leftovers) consumption; this includes smaller quantities of animal waste.
- If no information is available to distinguish between food waste and garden & park
waste it is recommended to allocate the known percentage of organic waste as 50%
food waste and 50% garden and park waste.
- If information is available on quantities of cardboard composites or cardboard
packaging it may be added to the waste fraction "Paper, cardboard".
- Plastics include polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate
(PET), polystyrene (PS) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC).
- Aluminium is the only non-ferrous metal regarded separately here; other non-ferrous
metals are of minor importance and should be included in "Others"; if only a
percentage is known for "metals", it is recommended to split this percentage to 15%
aluminium and 85% ferrous metals.
- "Others" includes all waste fractions not mentioned specifically, such as "fine
fraction", "electronic scrap", "miscellaneous" or "carcasses and bones", etc.
5.3 Waste characteristics – water content
The water content of waste, and consequently the calorific value, can differ significantly,
having an important impact on the results when waste is incinerated. The SWM-GHG
Calculator respects this dependency and users must distinguish between waste with low
or high water content.
Insert "1" for either low or high water content into the green cells. Alternatively, use the
assistant by clicking the respective button:
Assistant
If users forget to define the water content they will be reminded by an Excel warning to
check their input when trying to move to another worksheet:
yes no
Even though "high" and "low" water content is a rather arbitrary distinction, it aids more
precise calculations such that it can be assumed that the deviation due to simplification is
probably no greater than the general uncertainty of the results. On the other hand, the
effort required to determine the water content is relatively high and may not be possible in
many developing countries.
Table 5-2 shows some indices to help judge if the waste in question has a low or high
water content.
As a very rough rule of thumb a water content below 40% can be considered as low and a
water content above 40% as high.
Table 5-2 Indices for low and high water content
Low water content High water content

- The waste looks dry - The waste is sludgy, water is oozing out
- The waste has a high ash content, e.g. in - The waste has a high level of food waste
regions where people heat and cook on coal- caused by regional eating habits and lack of
burning stoves livestock to feed scraps to
- The waste has a high level of wet/non-
- The waste has a low level of garden waste or
waste from plants, e.g. in arid regions ligneous garden waste or waste from plants,
e.g. in humid areas
- The waste is stored openly, precipitation
- The waste is stored under dry conditions
adds to the water content
5.4 Calculation of waste parameters – intermediate result
Based on the defined waste composition and the indication of low or high water content
the regenerative carbon content, fossil carbon content and calorific value parameters are
calculated by taking the respective carbon content and calorific value of each waste
fraction and multiplying with the percentage of each waste fraction. The low and high
water content are considered for the organic fraction and the non-specified fraction
(others, especially fine fraction), because these two fractions usually vary most in water
content. Other waste fractions such as paper/cardboard, plastics, glass, metals and
textiles usually have a fairly stable water content and can be specified with fixed calorific
value.
All calculation processes are shown transparently on the "Calculation" worksheet in the
SWM-GHG Calculator.
Table 5-3 Carbon content waste fractions - Total and fossil carbon (IPCC 2006)
C total C fossil
Food waste 15.2% 0% % wet waste
Garden and park waste 19.6% 0% % wet waste
Paper, cardboard 41.4% 1% % wet waste
Plastics 75.0% 100% % wet waste
Glass 0% 0% % wet waste
Ferrous metals 0% 0% % wet waste
Aluminium 0% 0% % wet waste
Textiles 40.0% 20% % wet waste
Rubber, leather 56.3% 20% % wet waste
Nappies (diapers) 28.0% 10% % wet waste
Wood 42.5% 0% % wet waste
Mineral waste 0.0% 0% % wet waste
Others 2.7% 100% % wet waste
Table 5-3 shows the percentages used for total and fossil carbon content of the waste
fractions according to (IPCC 2006). Table 5-4 shows the calorific values of the waste
fractions used in the calculations. The table also shows the estimated water content of
organic waste and non-specified waste ("Others") in case of a low or high water content.
Table 5-4 Calorific value waste fractions
Fraction Calorific value

Organic waste low water content 4 MJ/kg wet waste
Organic waste high water content 2 MJ/kg wet waste
Paper 11.5 MJ/kg wet waste
Plastics 31.5 MJ/kg wet waste
Glass 0 MJ/kg wet waste
Metals 0 MJ/kg wet waste
Textiles, rubber, leather 14.6 MJ/kg wet waste
Wood 15 MJ/kg wet waste
Mineral waste 0 MJ/kg wet waste
Others low water content 8.4 MJ/kg wet waste
Others high water content 5 MJ/kg wet waste
Source: (AEA 2001); wood IFEU estimate
The results of the calculations for calorific values and regenerative and fossil carbon
content are shown in the tool for information. They are shown in the yellow box.
Intermediate result / information

The waste composition and water content you defined
leads to the following physical properties of the total waste
Result - calorific value and carbon content of total waste

Calorific value in MJ/kg 6,8
Total carbon content in % wet waste 24,0%
Fossil carbon content in % wet waste 5,6%
Regenerative carbon content in % wet waste 18,4%
If the cell for the calorific value indicates "wrong", please check that the question on water
content was answered correctly. You will be reminded to do so anyway when you try to
move to another worksheet.
Carbon content and calorific value are important parameters in many ways. As explained
in Section 5.2, the organic and fossil carbon content influence the GHG emissions results.
The calorific value is an important indicator for the combustibility of the waste. However,
the results calculated and shown in the SWM-GHG Calculator are never reliable or
representative enough to decide whether waste is appropriate for incineration or for waste
management strategy decisions. More precise information acquired by detailed analysis of
the waste is needed for decision making. The most important parameters that must be
known are combustible matter, ash and water contents. Based on these three parameters
the calorific value can be assessed with the help of what is called the fuel triangle (Figure
5-1). The triangle combines the three parameters in a graph that shows whether a waste
is capable of self-sustaining incineration (red area) and indicates the respective calorific
value.
Ca
lor
ific
va
lue
Wa
(in
)
ter
(A
MJ
h
(W
/kg
As
Combustable material (CM)
Figure 5-1 Fuel triangle

As a rough rule of thumb it can be assumed that self-sustaining incineration is difficult or

no longer possible if the calorific value of a waste is < 6 MJ/kg. As discussed above, in
practice waste should be thoroughly tested for incineration suitability.
Furthermore, the heavy metal, sulphur and halogen contents in particular have a
considerable impact on flue gas cleaning requirements and incineration costs.
Determination of these parameters requires in-depth surveys of waste composition, and
physical and chemical analyses.
5.5 Country-specific GHG emission factor for generation of electricity
Electricity generation produces GHG emissions. Usually, these are direct emissions from
fuel combustion (mainly CO2 from oxidation of the fossil carbon in the fuel) and indirect
emissions from the supply of fuels, e.g. methane emissions from the mine during coal
mining. Overall, the specific quantity of GHG emissions per kilowatt hour electricity
depends on the energy carriers or mix of energy carriers used for electricity generation.
The highest GHG emissions result from coal and oil as they have the highest fossil carbon
content relative to energy content. The lowest GHG emissions from fossil fuels result from
natural gas because natural gas has a low carbon content relative to energy content.
Almost no GHG emissions at all result from such renewable energy sources as wind or
water and from nuclear power plants, as in these cases no fossil carbon is burned.
The tool provides some examples for country-specific CO2 emissions from electricity
generation, which are shown in Table 5-5. More values for countries worldwide can be
found in Table 0-4 in the annex. These emission factors only refer to direct CO2 emissions
from fuel combustion. Worldwide data on GHG emissions from electricity generation,
including indirect emissions, are not available. Nevertheless, the underestimation by
disregarding indirect GHG emissions for electricity production is not too significant in
relation to the importance of methane emissions from landfill. On this note it is also not
absolutely necessary to enter the correct emission factor for a specific country. If users
know the specific emission factor for electricity production in their country then of course it
is best to use that value (in g CO2-eq/kWh electricity). But otherwise, a value can be
chosen from the default values given in Table 5-5. If you are not sure what to choose
please do not hesitate to make a best guess or try two different values to see the
difference in the results.
If users forget to insert a figure for the electricity mix they are reminded by an Excel
warning to do so when trying to move to another worksheet:
yes no
The CO2 emission factors for electricity production are not only used to calculate the GHG
emissions from electricity demand, but also to calculate the benefit from electricity
generated by a waste treatment technology (e.g. incineration).
Table 5-5 Examples of country-specific GHG emissions for electricity production
Electricity grid Default choices

Brazil (90% renewable) 51 g CO2-eq/kWh
China (80% fossil, 18% renewable) 1009 g CO2-eq/kWh
India (75% fossil, 18% renewable) 886 g CO2-eq/kWh
Mexico (63% fossil, 27% renewable) 607 g CO2-eq/kWh
South Africa (95% fossil) 819 g CO2-eq/kWh
Ukraine (63% fossil, 32% nuclear) 276 g CO2-eq/kWh
Source: EIA Energy Information Administration: official energy statistics from the U.S.
government
World total net electricity generation 2005 and CO2 emissions from power plants worldwide using
data from Carma (www.carma.org)
6 "Recycling"
On the "Recycling" worksheet you are asked for the recycling rates of different waste
fractions and additionally for the type of treatment in the case of organic waste:
Recycling rates for dry materials

Recycling rates for organic waste (food waste, garden and park waste)
Share of composting and digestion of recycled organic waste
6.1 Dry materials
Dry waste fractions that are considered in the SWM-GHG Calculator are
- Paper, cardboard
- Plastics
- Glass
- Ferrous metals
- Aluminium
- Textiles
The recycling rate asked for in the SWM-GHG Calculator corresponds to the amount of
each waste fraction in the total waste (Figure 6-1).
Example – recycling rate for paper, cardboard:
The total waste in a region is 1,000,000 tonnes per year

The share of paper and cardboard in the total waste quantity is 10%
= 100,000 tonnes per year
The recycling rate defines how much of these 100,000 tonnes of paper and
cardboard in the total waste is recycled
Î If 30,000 tonnes of paper, cardboard are recycled per year, then the recycling
rate is 30,000/100,000 = 30% and this value must be entered into the green cells.
Food waste
garden, park waste
x % to recycling
Paper, cardboard
Total
waste Plastics
amount
(100-x) % to disposal
Glass
Ferrous metals
Aluminium
Textiles
Rubber, leather
Nappies
Wood
Mineral waste
Others
Figure 6-1 Example recycling rate for paper, cardboard
The recycling rate should include the activities of the informal sector. Therefore, the waste
quantity that is already separated by the informal sector must be included in the
calculation.
Recycling rates vary from country to country and it is not possible to provide default
values. Usually, countries with integrated waste management systems have high recycling
rates. Table 5-5 shows the recycling rates for waste fractions in the EU 27
(Prognos/IFEU/INFU 2008), for Germany as assessed in (IFEU/Öko-Institut 2009) in 2006
and for Mexico in 2004 (SEMARNAT/INE 2006).
Table 6-1 Recycling rates in the EU 27 and in Germany
EU 271) Germany2) Mexico

Prognos/IFEU/ Öko-Institut/ SEMARNAT/
INFU 2008 IFEU 2009 INE 2006
Glass 50% 63% 13%
Paper, cardboard 56% 78% 16%
Plastics 35% 57% 8%
Ferrous metals 76% 80%
Aluminium 66%
Textiles 32%
Organic waste 37% 63% 3%
6.2 Organic waste composting and/or digestion
Organic waste considered in the SWM-GHG Calculator is:
- Food waste
- Garden and park waste
The recycling rate for organic waste must be entered analogous to dry material. The
SWM-GHG Calculator calculates two treatment options for organic waste: composting and
digestion. The next step therefore asks how much of the recycled organic waste is either
composted or digested. The reference value here is the amount of food waste, and
garden & park waste in the total waste; as a simplification these two organic waste
fractions are not distinguished further.
Example – recycling rate and type of treatment organic waste
The total waste amount in a region is 1,000,000 tonnes per year

The share of food waste in the total waste is 40%
The share of garden and park waste in the total waste is 15%
The recycling rate for food waste is 20% = 80,000 tonnes per year
The recycling rate for garden and park waste is 50% = 75,000 tonnes per year
Î In total 155,000 tonnes of organic waste are recycled per year
The next step asks how much of the 155,000 tonnes of organic waste is either
composted or digested
Î If 15,500 tonnes of the organic waste are digested and the rest is composted,
then 15,500/155,000 = 10% must be entered into the green cells for digestion and
90% for composting.
If organic waste is recycled the sum of organic waste digested and/or composted must be
100% in any case. If no recycling of organic waste is planned the green cells must not be
filled in. If you forget to fill in the respective green cells correctly you will be reminded by
an Excel warning to check the sum when you try to move to a different worksheet:
yes no
6.3 Intermediate results – waste parameters of remaining residual waste
The recycling rates defined change the composition of the remaining residual waste and
consequently the waste characteristics. For your information, the corresponding calorific
values and regenerative and fossil carbon content of the remaining residual waste are
now presented as intermediate results, which are shown in the yellow box.
Intermediate result / information

Separate collection changes the original waste composition, the recycling rates you inserted
lead to the following physical properties for the remaining residual waste
Result - carbon content of total waste Status Quo Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Calorific value in MJ/kg 6,2 5,8 5,8 5,4
Total carbon content in % wet waste 22,7% 21,7% 21,7% 20,5%
Fossil carbon content in % wet waste 4,4% 3,6% 3,6% 2,6%
Regenerative carbon content in % wet waste 18,3% 18,1% 18,1% 17,9%
Further calculations for disposal are in terms of this elementary composition of the
remaining residual waste.
6.4 Recycling – treatment processes and GHG emission factors
GHG emissions for the recycled waste fractions defined in this step are calculated based
on the mass of waste recycled and a GHG emission factor. The GHG emission factors
used are shown in the annex. They correspond to the European level, and are described
briefly in the annex.
7 "Disposal"
On the "Disposal" worksheet you are asked for the type of disposal of the remaining
residual waste, and some data on disposal technology.
Options for waste treatment and disposal

Data on disposal technologies – landfill
Data on disposal technologies – MSW Incineration
The remaining residual waste is the waste that remains after recycling material has been
extracted from the total waste either by the informal sector or by separate collection (see
Figure 6-1 "(100-x)% to disposal").
Example – remaining residual waste
The total waste amount in a region is 1,000,000 tonnes per year

The total waste recycled is 300,000 tonnes per year (sum of paper, cardboard,
plastics, glass, ferrous metals, aluminium, textiles, food waste, garden and park
waste to recycling)
Î The resulting remaining residual waste is 1,000,000 - 300,000 = 700,000 tonnes
per year.
You must indicate the type of treatment for this amount of remaining residual waste on the
"disposal" worksheet.
7.1 Options for waste treatment and disposal
Manifold treatment types and technologies exist. Some should be avoided at all costs as
they pose health hazards to the population and damage the environment, some are very
simple but at least less hazardous, and finally there are sophisticated or advanced
treatment technologies. The treatment technologies represented in the SWM-GHG
Calculator are listed below.
The first group includes common present practices that should be avoided at all costs.
They affect waste which is not regularly collected but usually scattered or delivered to a
wild dump site. Additionally, scattered waste is sometimes burned in the open (including
directly at households), producing huge amounts of extremely toxic substances (in
particular dioxins, furanes, aromatic hydrocarbons ...).
1) Scattered waste not burned

2) Open burning of scattered waste
3) Wild dumps/unmanaged disposal site
The second group is that of simple treatment and disposal technologies. Apart from
disposal to controlled landfills this includes simple biological stabilisation (BS) before
disposal whereby methane emissions are reduced.
4) Controlled dump/landfill without gas collection

5) Sanitary landfill with gas collection
6) BS2 + landfill
The third group includes advanced technologies. Apart from waste incineration this
includes treatment options with the purpose of separating recyclable fractions out of the
residual waste before stabilising the remaining waste biologically prior to sending to
landfill or to produce a refuse-derived fuel that may be co-incinerated, e.g. in cement kilns.
7) MBT3 + further treatment + landfill

8) MBS/MPS4 + co-processing cement kiln
9) Incineration
The total of the percentages of waste treatment and disposal options entered must equal
100%. If you forget to fill in the respective green cells correctly you will be reminded by an
Excel warning to check the sum when you try to move to a different worksheet:
yes no
All treatment types and technologies mentioned are described briefly in the annex.
2
Biological stabilisation
3
Mechanical-biological treatment
4
Mechanical-biological stabilisation / mechanical-physical stabilisation
7.2 Data on disposal technologies
The tool requires some important parameters to be defined:
a) related to landfill:
- Efficiency of gas collection
- Treatment of collected landfill gas
b) related to incineration plants

- Net efficiency of energy utilisation
Efficiency of gas collection in this context means the share of all potential methane
generated from a given quantity of waste that can be captured, or in other words the ratio
of collected landfill gas to the total generated landfill gas from a given quantity of waste.
Treatment options for collected landfill gas are: no treatment, flaring or electricity
generation. The total of the percentages of gas treatment you entered must equal 100%. If
you forget to fill in the respective green cells correctly you will be reminded by an Excel
warning to check the sum when you try to move to a different worksheet:
yes no
Further information on the net efficiency of energy utilisation through waste incineration
and the efficiency of gas collection and treatment of collected landfill gas is given in the
annex.
8 "Costs"
Typical default cost figures for the different activities have been deduced here from
literature, data and empiricism. User-figures may be entered if available. The values
represent average total costs (dynamic prime costs) and may vary considerably according
to national and local conditions. The level of technology also has an important influence
on the total cost.
The costs of establishing collection systems are also assumed to be required in each
scenario and are not taken into account.
Costs for recycling are the effective costs from the point of view of the municipality. It is
assumed that the collection and treatment costs are covered by revenues, irrespective of
who is responsible for collection and treatment. The costs for municipalities mainly consist
of public relations costs, the provision of bins and/or bags for the collection of recyclables,
administration costs, etc.
Table 8-1 shows a range of minimum and maximum costs per tonne of waste for the
different treatment options included in the SWM-GHG Calculator. The values can also be
found in the SWM-GHG Calculator. They are based on data from (eunomia).
Table 8-1 Dynamic prime costs (DPC) – Default values for treatment options
Costs in euros/t waste Min. Max.
Controlled dump/landfill without gas collection 3 5

Sanitary landfill with gas collection 12 20
BS + landfill 15 25
MBT + further treatment + landfill 40 60

MBS/MPS + co-processing cement kiln 50 80
Incineration 90 150
Recycling of dry waste 0 5

Composting 1) 20 40
Digestion 60 90
Source: KfW estimates
1) The default values correspond to open, simple composting plants, costs for advanced
composting technologies of a similar magnitude to digestion.
In general, specific costs depend on the order of magnitude; they decrease with
increasing plant capacity (economy of scale). As a rule of thumb, the following populations
should be related to the respective plants:
- Sanitary landfill > 300,000 to 500,000 inhabitants

- Simple composting plant > 20,000 to 100,000 inhabitants
- Advanced composting or digestion plant > 100,000 inhabitants
- Waste-to-energy plant > 1,000,000 inhabitants
Explanation of dynamic prime costs

Dynamic prime costs are the discrete total annual costs (capital costs, operating costs,
additional costs, replacement investments, etc.) accumulated over the calculated lifetime
of the investment, discounted to year 1 of the investment, divided by the cumulated
annual discounted total quantity of waste being treated over this period. The dynamic
prime costs correspond to the theoretical gate fee which an operator needs to charge to
cover the total emerging costs including interest for treatment/disposal of the waste in the
plant in order to balance surpluses and shortfalls over the total operating period.
9 "Results"
The results from the data entered and from the calculations as explained above are
shown on different worksheets in the SWM-GHG Calculator:
Results for one scenario:

- "Results SQ": results of GHG emission balance for the Status Quo
- "Results Sc1": results of GHG emission balance for Scenario 1
“Results all”: GHG emission balance scenario comparison – waste

quantities, GHG emissions.
“Results costs all”: Scenario comparison – annual costs and specific GHG
mitigation costs.
9.1 Results for each scenario
First of all, all results referring to one scenario are shown on a separate worksheet. The
worksheet is structured as follows:
- Waste treated in t/yr

- Results for GHG emissions recycling and disposal in t CO2-eq/yr
- Results for absolute costs for the calculated scenario
- Results for specific costs per t CO2-eq for the calculated scenario
Waste treated in tonnes per year are shown in a table, a bar chart and as a mass
balance diagram.
Results for GHG emissions recycling and disposal are shown in a table and a bar
chart (Figure 9-1). This figure shows the results for a theoretical Status Quo scenario as
described in section 3. The bar chart shows the results separately for recycling and for
disposal activities and also as the sum of both components ("Total MSW"). The first bar in
the figure indicates the GHG emissions caused by recycling (Debits). The second bar
represents the emission savings by recycling (Credits, negative values). The third bar
shows the net effect, i.e. the difference between debits and credits (Net).
GHG emissions
2.000.000
Debits
Credits
1.500.000 Net
tonne CO2-eq/yr
1.000.000
500.000
-500.000
Recycled waste Disposed of waste Total MSW
Figure 9-1 GHG emissions in a theoretical Status Quo scenario (see section 3)
Additionally, the results for GHG emissions are shown in more detail both for recycling
(Figure 9-2) and for disposal (Figure 9-3).
GHG emissions - recycling Net
60.000 Credits
Textiles
40.000 Aluminium
20.000 Ferrous Metals
Glass
0
Plastics
tonne CO2-eq/yr
-20.000 Paper, cardboard

Garden and Park waste
-40.000
Food waste
-60.000 Debits
-80.000 Textiles
Aluminium
-100.000
Ferrous Metals
-120.000 Glass
Plastics
-140.000
Paper, cardboard
-160.000 Garden and Park waste
recycled waste net Food waste
Figure 9-2 GHG emissions by waste fraction - recycling

GHG emissions - disposal Net

Credits
2.000.000 incineration
MBS/MPS/co-proc
1.800.000
MBT/treatm/landfill
1.600.000 BS/landfill
sanitary landfill
1.400.000 controlled landfill
tonne CO2-eq/yr
wild dump
1.200.000
burned-open
1.000.000 scattered waste
Debits
800.000 incineration
600.000 MBS/MPS/co-proc
MBT/treatm/landfill
400.000 BS/landfill
sanitary landfill
200.000 controlled landfill
wild dump
0
burned-open
disposed of waste net
scattered waste
Figure 9-3 GHG emissions by treatment option - disposal
In the recycling figure (Figure 9-2) the bars with "Debits" and "Credits" are itemised into
results for each recycled waste fraction. Thus the positive values in the first bar ("recycled
waste") show the debits (GHG emissions from recycling of plastics and paper, the
contribution of the other fractions is too small to be visible) and the negative values in the
first bar show the credits (with the highest contribution made by plastics and paper,
followed by aluminium recycling, ferrous metals and textiles). The second bar ("net") again
represents the net result, the difference between positive (debits) and negative (credits)
values, and is identical to the net result for "recycled waste" in Figure 9-1.
In the disposal figure (Figure 9-3) the bars with "Debits" and "Credits" are itemised into
results for each type of treatment. Similar to the example for a Status Quo scenario MSW
is scattered, open-burned is 10% and disposed of to wild dumps is 90%. Only these
treatment options contribute to the result causing positive values (debits) in the first bar
("disposed of waste"). No benefits are derived from these treatment options, therefore no
credits or negative values are seen. The second bar ("net") again represents the net
result, the difference between positive (debits) and negative (credits) values, and is
identical to the net result for "disposed of waste" in Figure 9-1.
Results for absolute costs and specific costs per t CO2-eq are shown in tables.
9.2 "Results all"
This worksheet shows the results for the waste mass flows and the GHG emissions for all
calculated scenarios. The upper part shows a table and a bar chart comparing the waste
quantities treated in each scenario. The results for the GHG emissions are also shown in
a table below and additionally in two bar charts. The examples shown below correspond
to the results for the scenarios as defined in section 3. The first diagram (Figure 9-4)
compares the four scenarios and shows the results in the same manner as in Figure 9-1.
The first bar (Debits) shows the total GHG emissions in the Status Quo scenario, the
second bar the credits, and the third bar the net result.
GHG emissions
2.000.000
Debits
1.500.000 Credits
Net
1.000.000
tonne CO2-eq/yr
500.000
-500.000
-1.000.000
-1.500.000
Figure 9-4 Overview of GHG emissions for all scenarios
Figure 9-5 also shows the results for the comparison of the four scenarios, but using a
different structure and in more detail. The first section refers to the results for recycling.
The first four bars show the debits from recycling in the four scenarios and the second
four bars the credits from recycling in the four scenarios. The next section shows the
same for disposed of waste. In the final section debits and credits and net results are
shown for the total MSW treatment in each case for the four scenarios.
GHG emissions
2.000.000
Status Quo
Scenario 1
1.500.000
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
1.000.000
tonne CO2-eq/yr
500.000
-500.000
-1.000.000
-1.500.000
Debits Credits Debits Credits Debits Credits Net
Recycled waste Disposed of waste Total MSW treatment
Figure 9-5 Overview of GHG emissions for all scenarios
9.3 "Results costs all"
This worksheet shows the results for the absolute costs for all calculated scenarios in one
table. Additionally, the mitigation costs are shown in a separate table below. The
mitigation costs are calculated as a comparison to the Status Quo scenario and per tonne
of waste treated in each case. Depending on the results it may not be reasonable to
indicate mitigation costs. For example, when a scenario causes more GHG emissions as
the Status Quo scenario, no mitigation costs can be accounted as no GHG emissions are
reduced. Nor can mitigation costs can be accounted if the total costs of a scenario that
minimises GHG emissions are lower than the total costs in the Status Quo scenario.
Although this case is not very likely or is more probably the effect of an incorrect entry, the
resulting "costs" would not be mitigation costs but represent a profit.
10 "Calculation"
The final worksheet in the SWM-GHG Calculator contains all the calculations as described
in the previous sections. In general, factors and linkages are used that should place users
in a position to understand the calculations as well as possible. Additionally, further
explanations are given in the Excel comments.
The following factors are given and calculations occur in the first sector of the worksheet:
- Emission factors of energy demand

- Carbon content of waste fractions
- Calorific value of waste fractions
- Total waste amounts, calorific value and carbon content
- Share of recycling, remaining residual waste; calorific value, carbon content
- Calculated composition of remaining residual waste
- Calculated carbon content, calorific value in residual waste
The emission factors are provided (recycling) or calculated (disposal) in the following
sector:
- Emission factors for recycling

- Emission factors for residual waste treatment options
The following sector shows the results for the waste amount and GHG emissions (first for
recycling and then below for treatment of the remaining residual waste) that are
transferred to the result worksheets:
- Results of Global Warming Potential (GWP) recycling

- Results of GWP residual waste treatment
The final sector shows the results for the total costs that are transferred to the result
worksheets:
- Results for total costs

11 References
(AEA 2001), Waste Management Options and Climate Change, Final Report to the
European Commission, DG Environment, AEA Technology plc, July 2001
(ANS/DWA 2009), Verbesserter Klimaschutz bei der Abfallentsorgung in Schwellen- und

Entwicklungsländern durch Anpassung des Emissionshandels, Position des ANS/-
DWA-Fachausschusses „Internationale Abfallwirtschaft“, in: Müll und Abfall 3-09
(CEWEP 2006), CEWEP Energy Report (Status 2001 – 2004) Results of Specific Data for
Energy, Efficiency Rates and Coefficients, Plant Efficiency Factors and NCV of 97
European W-t-E Plants and Determination of the Main Energy Results. Bamberg,
update July 2006
(DSW 2007), DSW-Datenreport, soziale und demografische Daten zur Weltbevölkerung,

Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevölkerung (DSW), August 2007
(eunomia), Costs for Municipal Waste Management in the EU, final report to DG
Environment European Commission, eunomia research & consulting on behalf of
Ecotec research & consulting, without year
(IPCC 2006), 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5:
Waste, Chapter 2: Waste Generation, Composition and Management Data
(IPCC 1996), Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
(KfW 2008), Financial feasibility versus environmental soundness? German-Turkish

environmental technology workshop 2008, Istanbul 19/20 June 2008, Wolfgang
Pfaff-Simoneit, KfW Entwicklungsbank
(IFEU 2008), Giegrich, J., Vogt, R.: Strategy Proposals for Optimising German
Development Cooperation - Contribution to GHG Mitigation in the Waste
Management Sector, commissioned by Deutsche Gesellschaft für technische
Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), December 2008
(Öko-Institut/IFEU 2009), Klimaschutzpotenziale der Abfallwirtschaft. Am Beispiel

Siedlungsabfälle und Altholz. Öko-Institut Darmstadt und Institut für Energie- und
Umweltforschung (IFEU) Heidelberg. Im Auftrag des Umweltbundesamtes und des
Bundesverbandes der deutschen Entsorgungswirtschaft (BDE). FKZ 3708 31 302,
in Bearbeitung
(Öko-Institut 2002), Dehoust, G.; Gebhard, P.; Gärtner, S.: "Der Beitrag der thermischen
Abfallbehandlung zu Klimaschutz, Luftreinhaltung und Ressourcenschonung",
Studie des Öko-Instituts im Auftrag der Interessengemeinschaft der Betreiber
thermischer Abfallbehandlungsanlagen in Deutschland (ITAD), 2002
(Prognos, IFEU, INFU 2008), Resource savings and CO2-reduction potential in waste
management in Europe and the possible contribution to the CO2 reduction target in
2020, multi client study, 2008
(SEMARNAT, INE 2006), Diagnóstico básico para la gestión integral des residuos.
Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SMERNAT), Instituto
Nacional de Ecología (INE), 26.10.2006
(Troge 2007), Der Beitrag der Abfallwirtschaft zum Klimaschutz, Vortrag von Prof. Dr.
Andreas Troge, Präsident des Umweltbundesamtes, auf der Veranstaltung
"Thermische Abfallbehandlung" am 7. März 2007 in München
(UBA 2009), German CDM Manual. Guidance for Applicants, Version 1.3
http://www.dehst.de/cln_090/nn_484538/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/JI__CDM/JI-
CDM__CDM__Manual__englisch,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/JI-
CDM_CDM_Manual_englisch.pdf
(VDZ 2008), Umweltdaten der deutschen Zementindustrie 2007. Verein deutscher

Zementwerke (VDZ) e.V., September 2008
Abbreviations
BMZ Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung

("Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development")
BS Biological stabilisation
C Carbon
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
CER Certified Emission Reductions
CHP Combined heat and power unit
CO2 Carbon dioxide
DOC Degradable organic carbon
DIP Deinking pulp
eq Equivalents
ELCD European LCA data platform
ERU Emission Reduction Units
GHG Greenhouse gas
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IMF International Monetary Fund
ISWM Integrated solid waste management
JI Joint Implementation
kg Kilogramme
LCA Life cycle assessment
LIE Low income economies
LWP Light-weight packaging
MBS Mechanical biological stabilisation
MBT Mechanical biological treatment
MIE Middle income economies
MPS Mechanical physical stabilisation
MJ Megajoule
MSW Municipal solid waste
MSWI Municipal solid waste incineration
PE Polyethylene
PET Polyethylene terephtalate

PO Polyolefins
PP Polypropylene
PS Polystyrene
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
RDF Refuse-derived fuel
t Metric tonne
WtE Waste to energy
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Manual: SWM-GHG Calculator - Annex Page 34
Annex
Page
I Specific MSW generation and management data 36
II Population and degree of urbanisation 40
III Regional defaults for MSW composition data by percent 43
IV Country-specific CO2 emissions for electricity generation 44
V "Recycling" – description of treatment processes 47
VI "Disposal" – description of treatment and disposal processes 50

Specific MSW generation and management data (IPCC 2006)
According to (IPCC 2006) municipal waste is generally defined as waste collected by

municipalities or other local authorities. However, this definition varies by country.
Typically, MSW includes household waste, garden (yard) and park waste, and
commercial/institutional waste. The regional default composition data for MSW is given in
Table 0-1.
Table 0-1 Specific MSW generation and management data (IPCC 2006)
Table 0-1 continued Specific MSW generation and management data (IPCC 2006)
Population and degree of urbanisation
Table 0-2 Population and degree of urbanisation in low, lower-middle and upper-
middle income economies1 (DSW 2007)2
Economy Code Region Population Urbanisation

Low income countries < 935 $ (DSW 2007) %
Afghanistan AFG South Asia 31.900.000 20
Bangladesh BGD South Asia 149.000.000 23
Benin BEN Sub-Saharan Africa 9.000.000 39
Burkina Faso BFA Sub-Saharan Africa 14.800.000 16
Burundi BDI Sub-Saharan Africa 8500000 10
Cambodia KHM East Asia & Pacific 14.400.000 15
Central African Republic CAF Sub-Saharan Africa 4.300.000 38
Chad TCD Sub-Saharan Africa 10.800.000 21
Comoros COM Sub-Saharan Africa 614.000 -
Congo, Dem. Rep. ZAR Sub-Saharan Africa 3.800.000 60
Côte d'Ivoire CIV Sub-Saharan Africa 20.200.000 47
Eritrea ERI Sub-Saharan Africa 4.900.000 19
Ethiopia ETH Sub-Saharan Africa 77.100.000 16
Gambia, The GMB Sub-Saharan Africa 1.500.000 50
Ghana GHA Sub-Saharan Africa 23.000.000 44
Guinea GIN Sub-Saharan Africa 10.100.000 30
Guinea-Bissau GNB Sub-Saharan Africa 1.700.000 30
Haiti HTI Latin America & Caribbean 9.000.000 36
Kenya KEN Sub-Saharan Africa 36.900.000 19
Korea, Dem. Rep. PRK East Asia & Pacific 23.300.000 60
Kyrgyz Republic KGZ Europe & Central Asia 5.200.000 35
Lao PDR LAO East Asia & Pacific 5.900.000 21
Liberia LBR Sub-Saharan Africa 3.800.000 58
Madagascar MDG Sub-Saharan Africa 18.300.000 26
Malawi MWI Sub-Saharan Africa 13.100.000 17
Mali MLI Sub-Saharan Africa 12.300.000 31
Mauritania MRT Sub-Saharan Africa 3.100.000 40
Mozambique MOZ Sub-Saharan Africa 20.400.000 35
Myanmar MMR East Asia & Pacific 49.800.000 29
Nepal NPL South Asia 27.800.000 27
Niger NER Sub-Saharan Africa 14.200.000 17
Nigeria NGA Sub-Saharan Africa 144.400.000 44
Pakistan PAK South Asia 169.300.000 14
Papua New Guinea PNG East Asia & Pacific 6.300.000 13
Rwanda RWA Sub-Saharan Africa 9.300.000 17
São Tomé and Principe STP Sub-Saharan Africa 200.000 58
Senegal SEN Sub-Saharan Africa 12.400.000 41
Sierra Leone SLE Sub-Saharan Africa 5.300.000 36
Solomon Islands SLB East Asia & Pacific 500.000 17
Somalia SOM Sub-Saharan Africa 9.100.000 34
Tajikistan TJK Europe & Central Asia 7.100.000 26
Tanzania TZA Sub-Saharan Africa 38.700.000 23
Togo TGO Sub-Saharan Africa 6.600.000 40
Uganda UGA Sub-Saharan Africa 28.500.000 12
Uzbekistan UZB Europe & Central Asia 26.500.000 36
Vietnam VNM East Asia & Pacific 85.100.000 27
Yemen, Rep. YEM Middle East & North Africa 22.400.000 26
Zambia ZMB Sub-Saharan Africa 11.500.000 35
Zimbabwe ZWE Sub-Saharan Africa 13.300.000 36
Total 1.225.214.000 27%
1
Classification of income groups according to the World Bank based on the 2007 gross national
income (GNI) per capita. The groups are: low income: $935 or less; lower middle income:
$936–3,705 and upper middle income: $3,706–11,455; high income: $11,456 or more
2
The 2009 report can be found under http://www.dsw-online.de/pdf/dsw_datenreport_09.pdf
Table 0-2 continued Population and degree of urbanisation in low, lower middle and
upper middle income economies (DSW 2007)

Lower middle income economies 936 - 3705 $ (World bank criteria) (DSW 2007) %
Albania ALB Europe & Central Asia 3.200.000 45
Algeria DZA Middle East & North Africa 34.100.000 58
Angola AGO Sub-Saharan Africa 16.300.000 40
Armenia ARM Europe & Central Asia 3.000.000 64
Azerbaijan AZE Europe & Central Asia 8.600.000 52
Bhutan BTN South Asia 900.000 31
Bolivia BOL Latin America & Caribbean 9.800.000 63
Bosnia and Herzegovina BIH Europe & Central Asia 3.800.000 46
Cameroon CMR Sub-Saharan Africa 18.100.000 53
Cape Verde CPV Sub-Saharan Africa 500.000 56
China CHN East Asia & Pacific 1.318.000.000 44
Colombia COL Latin America & Caribbean 46.200.000 72
Congo, Rep. COG Sub-Saharan Africa 3.800.000 60
Djibouti DJI Middle East & North Africa 800.000 82
Dominican Republic DOM Latin America & Caribbean 9.400.000 65
Ecuador ECU Latin America & Caribbean 13.500.000 62
Egypt, Arab Rep. EGY Middle East & North Africa 73.400.000 43
El Salvador SLV Latin America & Caribbean 6.900.000 59
Georgia GEO Europe & Central Asia 4.500.000 52
Guatemala GTM Latin America & Caribbean 13.400.000 47
Guyana GUY Latin America & Caribbean 800.000 28
Honduras HND Latin America & Caribbean 7.100.000 48
India IND South Asia 1.131.900.000 28
Indonesia IDN East Asia & Pacific 231.600.000 42
Iran, Islamic Rep. IRN Middle East & North Africa 71.200.000 67
Iraq IRQ Middle East & North Africa 29.000.000 67
Jordan JOR Middle East & North Africa 5.700.000 82
Kiribati KIR East Asia & Pacific 100.000 47
Lesotho LSO Sub-Saharan Africa 1.800.000 13
Macedonia, FYR MKD Europe & Central Asia 2.000.000 59
Maldives MDV South Asia 300.000 27
Marshall Islands MHL East Asia & Pacific 100.000 68
Micronesia, Fed. Sts. FSM East Asia & Pacific 100.000 22
Moldova MDA Europe & Central Asia 4.000.000 45
Mongolia MNG East Asia & Pacific 2.600.000 79
Morocco MAR Middle East & North Africa 31.700.000 55
Namibia NAM Sub-Saharan Africa 2.100.000 33
Nicaragua NIC Latin America & Caribbean 5.600.000 59
Paraguay PRY Latin America & Caribbean 6.100.000 57
Peru PER Latin America & Caribbean 27.900.000 73
Philippines PHL East Asia & Pacific 88.700.000 48
Samoa WSM East Asia & Pacific 200.000 22
Sri Lanka LKA South Asia 20.100.000 15
Sudan SDN Sub-Saharan Africa 38.600.000 41
Swaziland SWZ Sub-Saharan Africa 1.100.000 23
Syrian Arab Republic SYR Middle East & North Africa 19.900.000 50
Thailand THA East Asia & Pacific 65.700.000 33
Timor-Leste TMP East Asia & Pacific 1.000.000 22
Tonga TON East Asia & Pacific 100.000 24
Tunisia TUN Middle East & North Africa 10.200.000 65
Turkmenistan TKM Europe & Central Asia 5.400.000 47
Ukraine UKR Europe & Central Asia 46.500.000 68
Vanuatu VUT East Asia & Pacific 200.000 21
West Bank and Gaza WBG Middle East & North Africa 4.000.000 72
Total 3.451.600.000 41%
Table 0-2 continued Population and degree of urbanisation in low, lower middle and
upper middle income economies (DSW 2007)

Upper middle income economies 3706 - 11455 $ (World bank criteria) (DSW 2007) %
American Samoa ASM East Asia & Pacific 200.000 22
Argentina ARG Latin America & Caribbean 39.400.000 89
Belarus BLR Europe & Central Asia 9.700.000 73
Belize BLZ Latin America & Caribbean 300.000 50
Botswana BWA Sub-Saharan Africa 1.800.000 54
Brazil BRA Latin America & Caribbean 189.300.000 81
Bulgaria BGR Europe & Central Asia 7.700.000 71
Chile CHL Latin America & Caribbean 16.600.000 88
Costa Rica CRI Latin America & Caribbean 4.500.000 59
Croatia HRV Europe & Central Asia 4.400.000 56
Cuba CUB Latin America & Caribbean 11.200.000 76
Dominica DMA Latin America & Caribbean 100.000 73
Fiji FJI East Asia & Pacific 900.000 51
Gabon GAB Sub-Saharan Africa 1.300.000 84
Grenada GRD Latin America & Caribbean 100.000 31
Jamaica JAM Latin America & Caribbean 2.700.000 49
Kazakhstan KAZ Europe & Central Asia 15.500.000 57
Latvia LVA Europe & Central Asia 2.300.000 68
Lebanon LBN Middle East & North Africa 3.900.000 87
Libya LBY Middle East & North Africa 6.200.000 85
Lithuania LTU Europe & Central Asia 3.400.000 67
Malaysia MYS East Asia & Pacific 27.200.000 62
Mauritius MUS Sub-Saharan Africa 1.300.000 42
Mayotte MYT Sub-Saharan Africa 200.000 28
Mexico MEX Latin America & Caribbean 106.500.000 75
Montenegro MNE Europe & Central Asia 600.000 64
Palau PLW East Asia & Pacific 20.000 77
Panama PAN Latin America & Caribbean 3.300.000 64
Poland POL Europe & Central Asia 38.100.000 62
Romania ROM Europe & Central Asia 21.600.000 55
Russian Federation RUS Europe & Central Asia 141.700.000 73
Serbia SRB Europe & Central Asia 9.500.000 52
Seychelles SYC Sub-Saharan Africa 100.000 53
South Africa ZAF Sub-Saharan Africa 47.900.000 53
St. Kitts and Nevis KNA Latin America & Caribbean 50.000 32
St. Lucia LCA Latin America & Caribbean 200.000 28
St. Vincent and the Grenadines VCT Latin America & Caribbean 100.000 45
Suriname SUR Latin America & Caribbean 500.000 74
Turkey TUR Europe & Central Asia 74.000.000 66
Uruguay URY Latin America & Caribbean 3.300.000 93
Venezuela, RB VEN Latin America & Caribbean 27.500.000 88
Total 825.170.000 73%
Table 0-3 Regional defaults for MSW composition data by percent (IPCC 2006)
Country-specific CO2 emissions for electricity generation
Table 0-4 Direct CO2 emissions of electricity production worldwide 2007
Country g CO2/kWh Country g CO2/kWh

Afghanistan 215 Liberia 2,721
Albania 43 Libya 985
Algeria 1,238 Liechtenstein 46
Andorra 0 Lithuania 63
Angola 186 Luxembourg 774
Antarctica 0 Macedonia 932
Antigua & Barbuda 1,358 Madagascar 159
Argentina 441 Malawi 10
Armenia 97 Malaysia 799
Aruba 2,332 Maldives 1,768
Australia 1,051 Mali 432
Austria 236 Malta 1,295
Azerbaijan 528 Marshall Islands 579
Bahamas 1,221 Mauritania 1,046
Bahrain 509 Mauritius 1,129
Bangladesh 980 Mayotte 542
Barbados 2,019 Mexico 607
Belarus 733 Micronesia 445
Belgium 376 Moldova 166
Belize 423 Monaco 79
Benin 1,027 Mongolia 1,121
Bermuda 2,279 Montenegro 343
Bhutan 1 Morocco 995
Bolivia 323 Mozambique 1
Bosnia-Herzegovina 478 Myanmar 576
Botswana 2,414 Namibia 37
Brazil 51 Nauru 2,564
Brunei 1,053 Nepal 7
Bulgaria 456 Netherlands 714
Burkina Faso 903 Netherlands Antilles 616
Burundi 18 New Caledonia 1,636
Cambodia 642 New Zealand 233
Cameroon 56 Nicaragua 548
Canada 218 Niger 1,247
Cape Verde 1,478 Nigeria 358
Cayman Islands 928 North Korea 372
Central African Republic 118 Norway 1
Chad 2,012 Oman 850
Chile 466 Pakistan 418
China 1,009 Palau 600
Colombia 155 Palestine 347
Comoros 652 Panama 187
Congo 2 Papua New Guinea 588

Congo Republic 105 Paraguay 13
Costa Rica 7 Peru 174
Cote D'Ivoire 683 Philippines 557
Croatia 388 Poland 678
Cuba 1,298 Portugal 626
Cyprus 1,683 Qatar 848
Czech Republic 617 Romania 337
Denmark 382 Russia 606
Djibouti 1,779 Rwanda 0
Dominica 531 Samoa 446
Dominican Republic 758 Sao Tome & Principe 426
East Timor 664 Saudi Arabia 851
Ecuador 295 Senegal 1,310
Egypt 878 Serbia 751
El Salvador 244 Seychelles 768
Equatorial Guinea 613 Sierra Leone 1,759
Eritrea 500 Singapore 540
Estonia 569 Slovakia 362
Ethiopia 23 Slovenia 387
Faroe Islands 702 Solomon Islands 1,886
Fiji 105 Somalia 1,722
Finland 316 South Africa 819
France 74 South Korea 561
French Polynesia 1,143 Spain 566
Gabon 332 Sri Lanka 440
Gambia 2,688 St Kitts & Nevis 2,721
Georgia 76 St Lucia 2,721
Germany 517 St Vincent & Grenadines 821
Ghana 46 Sudan 562
Greece 1,020 Suriname 66
Grenada 2,700 Swaziland 23
Guatemala 434 Sweden 19
Guinea 385 Switzerland 5
Guinea-Bissau 2,208 Syria 964
Guyana 1,765 Taiwan (China) 601
Haiti 503 Tajikistan 14
Honduras 594 Tanzania 54
Hungary 443 Thailand 786
Iceland 1 Togo 200
India 886 Tonga 2,689
Indonesia 746 Trinidad & Tobago 1,468
Iran 791 Tunisia 1,201
Iraq 1,316 Turkey 746
Ireland 1,099 Turkmenistan 2,043
Isle Of Man 446 Tuvalu 717
Israel 1,073 Uganda 17
Italy 668 Ukraine 276
Jamaica 1,893 United Arab Emirates 502

Japan 356 United Kingdom 531
Jordan 1,631 United States 637
Kazakhstan 523 Uruguay 68
Kenya 118 Uzbekistan 717
Kiribati 2,620 Vanuatu 1,933
Kuwait 581 Venezuela 139
Kyrgyzstan 30 Vietnam 556
Laos 13 Yemen 2,573
Latvia 164 Zambia 4
Lebanon 782 Zimbabwe 441
Lesotho 2
Source: EIA Energy information administration: official energy statistics from the U.S.
government.
World total net electricity generation 2005 and CO2 emissions from power plants worldwide using
data from Carma (www.carma.org)
"Recycling" – description of treatment processes
GHG emissions for the recycled waste fractions are calculated based on the mass of
waste recycled and a GHG emission factor. The GHG emission factors used are shown in
Table 0-5. These GHG emission factors are derived from a European level study
(Prognos/IFEU/INFU 2008). The corresponding treatment processes therefore refer to the
European level. They are described below.
Table 0-5 GHG emission factors for recycling
kg CO2-eq/t Metals
waste Organic waste Paper Glass (steel) Aluminium Plastics Textiles
Digestion Composting Deinking Melting
Emissions 57 87 180 20 22 700 1,023 32
Avoided
emissions 159 95 1,000 500 2,047 11,800 1,437 2,850
Net result -102 -8 -820 -480 -2,025 -11,100 -414 -2,818
Source: (Prognos, IFEU, INFU 2008); metals (steel) estimation IFEU
Composting of organic waste
For the composting of organic waste a ratio of 50% open and 50% encapsulated
composting plants is assumed. The average electricity demand of the latter is calculated
as 30 kWh/t organic waste. Open composting is managed with diesel-engined machinery
and the diesel demand was calculated as 1.5 l/t organic waste. The GHG emissions from
composting are roughly one third CO2 emissions from electricity and diesel demand, the
remainder are methane and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from the composting process
and resulting from the agricultural use of compost.
Products were considered to be one third immature compost, which is used mainly in
agricultural applications. For matured compost it was estimated that 20% are used in
agriculture, about 40% for gardening purposes in professional and leisure applications or
as a substrate. The rest becomes substrate material for recultivation purposes. The
application pattern determines the substituted primary material. The agricultural
application substitutes for mineral fertilizer, depending on the nutrient content in the
compost. If the compost is used as a substrate or as humus supply then peat and/or bark
humus is substituted for, depending on the content of organic matter in the compost.
When compost is used for recultivation no primary material is substituted for, because
usually only waste material is used for these purposes.
Digestion of organic waste
Instead of composting organic waste, the material can also be introduced into an
anaerobic digestion facility. The outputs (products) of digestion are biogas (energy). It is
assumed that the digestate is dewatered and a ratio of 50% direct application and 50%
post-composting are assumed. The energy demand is covered by using the biogas
produced. With a gas production rate of 100 m³ per tonne of organic waste and a methane
content of 62%, the biogas can be used in a combined heat and power plant. Modern
plants of this type have energy efficiency for electricity of 37.5% and heat of 43%. The
electricity demand of the plant is then subtracted and the remaining electricity is supplied
to the net. In the SWM-GHG Calculator only the net electricity produced is credited. Heat
production is neglected because it is usually difficult to find an external customer. Main
GHG emissions are methane emissions from the digestion process and nitrous oxide
emissions from agricultural applications.
Application of the matured digestion compost is similar to application of matured compost

from composting and the benefits were calculated in the same way. The electricity
replaced is compared to electricity generation as indicated by the user (country-specific
electricity mix).
Paper, cardboard
The GHG emission factor for paper and cardboard recycling includes sorting and
production of deinking pulp (DIP). An overall sorting loss of 1% during the sorting process
and 5.3% residues and sludge at the DIP were subtracted from existing plant data. These
residues are incinerated in waste to energy (WtE) plants for municipal solid waste and co-
incinerated at an industrial power plant.
The assumption for primary production was made to take the equivalent pulp production
into consideration. It was assumed that the primary fibre consists of 50% thermo-
mechanical pulp (e.g. for newspapers) of European production and 50% of Kraft pulp
(sulphate pulp) of Nordic production. The benefits of energy generation from incineration
of the residues are included.
Plastics
The GHG emission factor for plastics represents a mixture of 80% polyolefins (PO), 10%
PET, 5% PS and 5% PVC, assumed as typical. In general, the GHG emission factor
includes sorting and treating for secondary flakes.
Polyolefins (PO)
Polyolefins are a mixture of PE and PP. The electricity demand at the sorting and
treatment plant was calculated from typical existing plants (IFEU/HTP 2001). About 20%
sorting and treatment residues were assumed to go to MSWI plants with energy recovery.
A mix consisting of 50% PP, 25% high density PE (HDPE) and 25% low density PE
(LDPE) was assumed for the substituted primary production. Data from primary
production were taken from Plastics Europe. Because secondary granulates have a lower
performance than primary material, a functional equivalence was established using a
substitution factor of 0.7. The benefits of energy generation from incineration of sorting
and treatment residues are included.
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)

The electricity demand at the sorting and treatment plant was calculated using
unpublished data provided to IFEU by existing plants. About 30% sorting residue was
assumed as sorting and production losses, which go to MSWI plants with energy
recovery. Data for the substituted primary PET production were taken from Plastics
Europe. Because recycled PET is of high quality, a substitution factor of 1 was applied
here. The benefits of energy generation from incineration of the residues are included.
Polystyrene (PS)
The electricity demand at the sorting and treatment plant was calculated using
unpublished data provided to IFEU by existing plants. About 20% sorting residue was
assumed as sorting and production losses, which go to MSWI plants with energy
recovery. Data for the substituted primary PS production was taken from Plastics Europe.
Because secondary PS is of high quality, a substitution factor of 0.9 was applied here.
The benefits of energy generation from incineration of sorting and treatment residues are
included.
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)

The electricity demand at the sorting and treatment plant was estimated. About 20%
sorting residue was assumed as sorting and production losses, which go to MSWI plant
with energy recovery. Data for primary PVC production were taken from calculations by
Plastics Europe. IFEU prepared a data update for the European Council of Vinyl
Manufacturers and Plastics Europe, which is included. The primary production of
suspension PVC was chosen as reference. A substitution factor of 0.9 was estimated and
applied here. The benefits of energy generation from incineration of sorting and treatment
residues are included.
Glass
The approach for glass and its system boundaries is different to other materials. This is
due to the fact that glass factories normally operate with a mixture of primary material and
glass from the waste stream. As data sets exist only for different shares of waste glass
input, a specific model for glass production was developed. An additional sorting step to
eliminate caps and labels is considered, the fate of the 3% sorting residues was ignored.
The waste glass is then introduced into the smelting devices. The saved effort of using
secondary glass was calculated from existing glass factory data. This is a non-linear
relationship and is valid for a range between 50% and 90% of secondary glass (100%
secondary glass input is technically not feasible). The GHG emission factor was
calculated with a share of 75%.
Steel
It is difficult to distinguish between primary steel production and secondary steel

production using the information published by the steel industry. The only available data
(European LCA Data Platform, ELCD1) distinguishes between the two technologies, but it
already includes credits for recycling. Unfortunately, no information is available from the
steel industry to differentiate the figures. In (Prognos/IFEU/INFA 2008) the official global
steel production figures from the ELCD web page ("steel rebar GLO") were used,
including primary and secondary steel. However, this figure applies to both primary and
secondary steel. A different approach was chosen for the SWM-GHG Calculator. It is
assumed that steel production is the same regardless of whether pig iron or scrap is
introduced into the furnace. Therefore, recycling ferrous metals substitutes for the
production of pig iron, which is calculated based on data provided in Umberto2.
1
http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/datasetArea.vm
2
Umberto version 5.5 (life cycle assessment tool), main sources: Ecoinvent, Rentz et al.
Aluminium
Secondary aluminium is produced by separate smelting facilities. The data used is taken
from European aluminium industry publications. Primary aluminium data from European
industry are from 2002 and – in contrast to the steel industry – does not include any
credits for recycling. A recycling rate of 88% is assumed in the data set of the European
LCA Data Platform.
Textiles
Several obstacles render the generation of figures for material recycling or reuse of
textiles difficult. No descriptions of production processes for secondary textiles or
researchable details on which textiles are exported from the EU for reuse purposes are
available. In addition, it is difficult to assess which primary material would have been
substituted by such material recycling or reuse, because the type of textile fibre (cotton or
synthetic) and its distribution is unknown. In (Prognos/IFEU/INFA 2008) it was assumed
that textiles are exported to and reused in non-EU countries. Thus, the emissions from
textile recycling roughly correspond to emissions for shipping. Additionally, it was
assumed that reused textiles consist of one third cotton fibre and two thirds synthetic,
polyester textile fibre. The lifetime of the reused textiles was assumed to be half of primary
textiles, and a substitution factor of 0.5 was applied for the substitution of primary
products.
"Disposal" – description of waste treatment and disposal processes
Unburned scattered waste
Scattered waste is waste randomly thrown into the landscape. It decomposes under
aerobic conditions. In this way no methane emissions occur from waste degradation.
Although this is favourable in terms of climate change, this practice should be avoided at
all costs as it poses massive health hazards to the population and damages the
environment.
Open burning of scattered waste
In some cases scattered waste is burned openly. This can also take place directly at
households. The uncontrolled combustion of waste is extremely dangerous to health due
to the emissions of toxic substances. These toxic substances have no influence on
climate change. However, climate change is affected by open burning because fossil
carbon in the waste is oxidised to CO2. In the SWM-GHG Calculator open burning is
calculated as complete oxidation of the fossil carbon contained in the waste. Considering
the uncertainty of the quantities burned in the open and because the incompletely burned
remains will decompose over time this is an insignificant simplification
Wild dumps/unmanaged disposal site
Wild dumps are uncontrolled and/or unmanaged landfill. In contrast to scattering, the
waste is not disposed of over a wide area but at one location with deep disposal at a
depth of roughly greater than five meters. Under these conditions the waste mainly
decomposes anaerobically. The same applies to disposal sites where the waste is
deposited in water such as a pond, river or wetland. Methane is generated under
anaerobic conditions. The resulting methane emissions from wild dumps are calculated in
the SWM-GHG Calculator as equal to methane emissions from "controlled dump/landfill
without gas collection". This may overestimate methane emissions slightly; according to
(IPCC 2006) unmanaged disposal sites produce less methane than managed anaerobic
disposal sites because a larger fraction of waste decomposes aerobically in the upper
layer in unmanaged disposal sites. In (IPCC 2006) this is taken into consideration by
methane correction factors for unmanaged deep, unmanaged shallow and managed semi-
aerobic disposal sites. The simplification in the SWM-GHG Calculator appears reasonable
because generally no reliable data exist about the type of wild dump, let alone the total
amount of waste being scattered or deep deposited.
Controlled dump/landfill without gas collection
According to (IPCC 2006) managed disposal sites must use controlled placement of
waste. For example, waste should be directed to specific areas, a degree of control over
scavenging and over fires should be exercised. Furthermore, managed disposal sites will
include at least either cover material or mechanical compacting or levelling of the waste.
Here, managed disposal sites without and with gas collection are differentiated, because
this is a relevant factor for GHG emissions.
In general, waste disposal is calculated in the SWM-GHG Calculator following the IPCC
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (1996, 2006). The SWM-GHG
Calculator uses the theoretical gas yield methodology to compare the different waste
management options. This methodology is the simplest method for calculating methane
emissions from waste disposal. It assumes that all potential methane is released from
waste in the year that the waste is disposed of. Although, this is not what actually occurs,
it is necessary for comparing different waste management options because only then are
all future emissions for one tonne of waste taken into account for a correct comparison.
Sanitary landfill with gas collection
As discussed above, methane emissions from waste disposal are calculated consistently
for all landfill types. In general, this accounts for the methane generation potential, if
sanitary landfill gas is collected. These potential methane emissions are reduced as a
function of gas collection efficiency and the type of gas treatment. Furthermore, sanitary
landfills usually cover the final waste body with methane-oxidising material. This fact is
considered in the SWM-GHG Calculator using the oxidation factor of 10% for managed,
covered landfills according to (IPCC 2006) .
To define the efficiency of gas collection you are asked to enter a respective percentage
in the SWM-GHG Calculator. Gas collection efficiency in this context means the share of
all potentially generated methane from a given quantity of waste that can be captured, or
in other words, the ratio of collected landfill gas relative to the total generated landfill gas
from a given quantity of waste. The default values recommended in the SWM-GHG
Calculator for this average net efficiency are 10% and 50%.
Measurements of efficiencies at gas recovery projects (IPCC 2006) have reported

efficiencies between 9 and above 90 percent. These measurements reflect a momentary
situation. Over the lifetime of a landfill it is assumed that only about 50% of all potentially
methane generated can be captured even using technically advanced gas collection
techniques. For example, in Germany, where the landfill ban for MSW came into effect in
2005, and where all landfills are sanitary and include a gas collection system, the gas
efficiency rate was reported to be 60% in the 2007. This means that although no more
MSW was disposed of in comparison to 2005 and all landfills are closed and covered, still
only 60% of the methane generated was captured in the 2007 for technical reasons.
The average net efficiency of gas collection is time dependent. In the early stages of
waste disposal to landfill, the waste is not generally covered. Only a small quantity of
generated methane can therefore be captured in this phase. Later, when the waste body
is covered, more of the methane generated can be captured although 100% is still not
achieved due to technical limitations.
Example:
1 tonne of waste generates 200 m³ of landfill gas over a time period of 50 years. It is
assumed that 60% of the landfill gas is generated during the first 10 years when the
landfill is active and not covered. In this period it is assumed that 30% of the landfill gas
generated can be captured. After 10 years the waste body is covered and more of the
generated landfill gas can be captured in the remaining 40 years. Efficiency is estimated
at 80%. The resulting average net efficiency then is: 200*(0.6*0.3 + 0.4*0.8)/200 = 0.5.
In addition to the efficiency of gas collection in the SWM-GHG Calculator you are also
asked what happens to collected landfill gas. The gas may remain untreated but vented,
e.g. with a simple chimney to prevent self incineration of the waste body. Methane
emissions are not reduced in this model. Alternatively, the gas can be flared. In this model
methane is oxidised to CO2, which is climate-neutral because it comes from regenerative
carbon. Finally, the collected gas can be used for electricity generation. In the SWM-GHG
Calculator use in a combined heat and power plant is considered with a net electrical
efficiency of 30%. The produced heat is not taken into account because it is generally
difficult to find an external customer. The replaced electricity is credited with GHG
emissions from electricity generation as indicated by the user (country-specific electricity
mix).
The total of the percentages entered for the treatment of collected landfill gas must equal
100%. If you forget to fill in the respective green cells correctly you will be reminded by an
Excel warning to check the sum when you try to move to a different worksheet.
yes no
BS + landfill
BS + landfill is defined as simple biological stabilisation (BS) of MSW and disposal of the
residue with lower methane emissions than without stabilisation. The biological
stabilisation takes place by building up the MSW in compost heaps which are aerated
according to the chimney principle. No, or only simple, mechanical pre-treatment (e.g.
homogenisation, shredding, modulation of water content) takes place. Biological treatment
occurs over a period of at least 8 weeks. The output produced is less biologically active
and is disposed of with lower resulting methane emissions. The mechanical energy
demand for biological treatment and for disposal of the output is estimated at approx. 9
kWh/t waste following the energy demand for simple composting. The electricity demand
is estimated at 2 kWh/t waste and is the same as for sanitary landfill.
MBT + further treatment + landfill
MBT + further treatment + landfill is an advanced technology concept of MSW treatment.

In a mechanical-biological treatment (MBT) plant MSW is initially mechanically treated to
separate metals, impurities and a waste fraction with a high calorific value. The latter is
used as refuse-derived fuel for co-incineration. The remaining residual waste consists to a
high extent of organic waste. It is biologically stabilised through encapsulated composting.
The exhaust air from composting is collected and treated via thermal oxidation. The
concept is typical for Germany where both MBT and MSWI must comply with the same
threshold values for total organic carbon, methane and nitrous oxide.
The output from biological stabilisation is disposed of to MBT landfill. The material is much
denser and has almost no remaining biological activity. Thus much less space is needed
for disposal and methane emissions are minimised.
The aim of this treatment option is to separate recyclables from MSW and to produce a
biologically inactive material that can be deposited with negligible negative impacts in
terms of climate change. The electricity demand of the MBT plant is calculated at
38 kWh/t waste, the heat demand at 8 kWh/t and the natural gas demand for thermal
oxidation of the exhaust air at 5 m³/t MSW. The fractions separated by the MBT plant are
shown in Figure 0-1. The values for energy demand and mass balance represent the
average situation in Germany (Öko-Institut/IFEU 2009).
100% MSW
2.6% Fe-metals
0.2% non-ferrous metals
to recycling
37.7% RDF to cement kiln
24.1% losses 3.4% impurities to MSWI
32% stabilised output

to landfill
Figure 0-1 Mass flow diagram of an average MBT plant in Germany
The values for Germany have been chosen because currently this MSW treatment
concept is almost only implemented in Germany. The mass balance therefore accounts
only for the German situation. In other countries the composition of the remaining residual
waste may differ and therefore the possible extraction rates for metals and RDF may also
differ. A more precise approach would be to take into account the composition and
recycling rates as defined in the SWM-GHG Calculator by the user. Additionally, recovery
rates are needed from concrete treatment concepts (e.g. information from providers,
stating that aggregates x% of the metal input and/or y% of the high calorific fraction in the
residual waste can be separated using a specified mechanical treatment).
In the long-term it is assumed that the MBT concept may be also applied on a global
scale. In this case the German values should be substituted by values that are valid on a
more general basis. It is therefore planned to adjust the SWM-GHG Calculator in the
future in such a way that the defined and calculated composition of the remaining residual
waste is taken into account and specific provider's warranties are used to calculate the
recovery rates.
In the SWM-GHG Calculator it is assumed that the separated RDF fraction is co-
incinerated in a cement kiln. The RDF is specified with a calorific value of 13.3 MJ/kg
waste and a fossil carbon content of approx. 19%. Thus the co-incineration causes fossil
CO2 emissions corresponding to the fossil carbon content with assumed complete
incineration. The benefit of co-incineration is the substitution of fossil fuels with a typical
input mix in Germany of 29.4% hard coal, 53.1% lignite, 11.8% coke, 4.4% heavy fuel oil,
and 1.3% others (VDZ 2008).
It is assumed that the impurities are treated in a MSWI plant. They are defined as typical
MSW in Germany with a calorific value of 9.2 MJ/kg and a fossil carbon content of approx.
9%. Thus the incineration causes fossil CO2 emissions corresponding to the fossil carbon
content with assumed complete incineration. In Germany most MSWI plants produce
energy from waste incineration. On average, the net electrical efficiency is 10%, and the
thermal efficiency 30%. The emissions from conventional electricity and heat production
avoided are considered in the SWM-GHG Calculator. For electricity generation these are
the CO2 emissions as defined by the user (country-specific electricity mix), an average
value was used for heat (50% oil, 50% natural gas).
MBS/MPS + co-processing cement kiln
Mechanical biological stabilisation (MBS) and/or mechanical physical stabilisation (MPS)

+ co-processing cement kiln is an advanced technology concept of MSW treatment similar
to MBT. Also similar to MBT, MSW is initially mechanically treated to separate metals and
impurities. But in contrast to MBT the complete remaining fraction is stabilised either
biologically or physically to produce RDF. Thus no output to landfill is generated.
However, the MBS/MPS plants also represent the German situation. Therefore, they also
must comply with German threshold values, and exhaust air from stabilisation is collected
and treated via thermal oxidation.
The aim of this treatment option is to produce RDF and to separate metals. The electricity
demand of the MBS/MPS plant is calculated at 39 kWh/t waste, the heat demand at
6 kWh/t and the natural gas demand at 42 m³/t MSW. In this case natural gas is not only
used for the thermal oxidation of the exhaust air but also to provide heat energy for the
stabilisation process. The fractions separated by the MBS/MPS plant are shown in Figure
0-2. The values for energy demand and mass balance represent the average situation in
Germany (Öko-Institut/IFEU 2009).
MBS and MPS are two different approaches to stabilising the otherwise biologically active
remaining fraction after mechanical treatment. In both cases stabilisation is mainly
achieved by drying the waste material to less than approx. 15% water content. With a
water content as low as this the biological activity of the organic waste is brought to a halt.
In case of biological stabilisation the biological fraction is introduced into a reactor where it
starts to decompose and is systematically aerated. Physical stabilisation happens through
drying of the biological fraction with heat.
100% MSW
2.6% Fe-metals
0.2% non-ferrous metals
to recycling
51.8% RDF to cement kiln
27% losses 6.9% impurities to MSWI
Figure 0-2 Mass flow diagram of an average MBS/MPS plant in Germany
Co-incineration of RDF in a cement kiln and incineration of impurities in a MSWI plant are
calculated in the same way as for MBT (see above), because this corresponds to the
average situation in Germany. The benefits from co-incineration of RDF and incineration
of impurities are also calculated as described for MBT.
Incineration
Different MSWI plant technologies exist. The most common models are grate firing and
fluidised bed combustion, with the first dominating in Germany. In terms of environmental
concerns the most important aspect of MSWI technologies is the type of flue gas
treatment. In general, MSWI plants should be in compliance with German and/or EU 27
emission standards, for example. Emissions hazardous to health needn’t therefore be
feared.
Additionally, the waste should be thoroughly tested for its suitability for incineration. The
most important aspects in terms of waste characteristics and quality are explained in
Section 5.4. As a rough rule of thumb it can be assumed that self-sustaining incineration
usually requires a minimum calorific value of about 6 MJ/kg waste. In addition to waste
combustibility data, information on the level of heavy metals is also important, because
this has considerable influence on flue gas cleaning requirements and incineration costs.
Determination of these parameters requires in-depth surveys of the waste composition
and physical and chemical analyses.
The main relevant emissions in terms of climate change are fossil CO2 emissions resulting
from incineration of fossil carbon contained in waste. As a conservative simplification in
the SWM-GHG Calculator, complete combustion is assumed for technologically advanced
MSWI plants. The fate of the ash and slag output products is not considered in the tool.
Modern MSWI plants usually produce energy. In a further step in the SWM-GHG
Calculator you are asked to enter the net energy efficiency. If MSWI plants have a steam
turbine then they produce electricity and in some cases heat. If only electricity is produced
the maximum electrical efficiency is about 20% for thermodynamic reasons. If heat is also
produced the electrical efficiency is lower. The degree of heat production depends on
whether it is possible to sell the heat. On average MSWI plants in Germany have a net
electrical efficiency of 10% and a thermal efficiency of 30% (Öko-Institut 2002). These
values are also applicable on a European level (CEWEP 2006).
The default values given in the SWM-GHG Calculator for net electrical efficiency and
thermal efficiency are 15% and 0% respectively. These values were chosen because it is
assumed that it is barely possible to find a customer for heat in developing countries and
that therefore only electricity is produced.
The emissions avoided by the substitution of electricity and heat production are
considered in the SWM-GHG Calculator. For electricity generation these are the CO2
emissions as defined by the user (country-specific electricity mix); an average value was
used for heat (50% oil, 50% natural gas).

GHG From Waste

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

GHG From Waste

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Manual

Tool for calculating greenhouse gases (GHG)

Developed by Sponsored and financed by

Frankfurt am Main, Juli 2009

This manual provides background information and additional explanations

Besides some explanatory instructions this manual provides additional

The SWM-GHG Calculator was developed by IFEU Institute, sponsored by

Mr. Wolfgang Pfaff-Simoneit (KfW)

1 Background and objective 1

3 Recommendations for defining scenarios 5

1 Background and objective

The waste management sector contributes to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect

"Recycling" in GHG national inventories

significantly contribute to improving public health conditions and environmental protection

Figure 2-1 shows a simplified example of an integrated waste management system. At

Figure 2-1 Flow diagram of an integrated solid waste management system

3 Recommendations for defining scenarios

Table 3-1 Example of a Status Quo and definition of alternative scenarios

The Status Quo describes a typical situation in a developing country where

Status Quo Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Table 3-3 Composting or digestion of separately collected organic waste – Example

Status Quo Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Status Quo Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Status Quo Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Treatment of collected landfill gas

Energy efficiency of incineration

The SWM-GHG Calculator comprises the following sheets:

Intro: Brief outline of the SWM-GHG Calculator, contact persons.

Start: Specification of waste amount, waste composition, waste

Recycling: Specifications for waste recycling, up to 4 scenarios can be

Disposal: Specifications for waste treatment and disposal, up to 4 scenarios

Results all: Summary comparison of the results of up to four scenarios.

The sheets are explained in more detail in the following sections.

On the first worksheet, "Start", these are:

 Total waste amount

5.1 Total waste amount

The total waste amount can be entered either as:

a) Total waste amount in tonnes per year (tonnes/yr), or

Please note that only one option (a, b or c) may be used!

View before data entry View after data entry

Result - total waste amount Result - total waste amount

If you forget the quantity of waste the following warning appears:

If you forget the number of inhabitants the following warning appears:

5.2 Waste composition

Components Default LIE Default MIE

Explanations and recommendations:

5.3 Waste characteristics – water content

Table 5-2 Indices for low and high water content

Low water content High water content

5.4 Calculation of waste parameters – intermediate result

Table 5-4 Calorific value waste fractions

Fraction Calorific value

Intermediate result / information

Result - calorific value and carbon content of total waste

Combustable material (CM)

Figure 5-1 Fuel triangle

As a rough rule of thumb it can be assumed that self-sustaining incineration is difficult or

5.5 Country-specific GHG emission factor for generation of electricity

Table 5-5 Examples of country-specific GHG emissions for electricity production

Electricity grid Default choices

 Recycling rates for dry materials

6.1 Dry materials

Example – recycling rate for paper, cardboard:

Total waste amount

Recycling rates for dry materials

Options for waste treatment and disposal